I created a fresh new rails app, no gems, no nothing. Completely unmodified. Doing anything that initializes rails takes 2 - 3 times longer in ruby 1.9.1 than it does in 1.8.7. Obviously with a fresh rails app, this is only 2 - 3 seconds extra. But with a decent sized app, this can take up to 25 seconds for rails to initialize, vs the 12 seconds in 1.8.7. I''ve been racking my brain on this all day. I don''t know where to begin. Any ideas what might be causing the problem or a way to profile the code and figure out what is taking so long? The reason its an issue for me, heroku times out before my app has a chance to start, displaying an error message that the app times out. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Ben, did you ever figure out anything here? I''m experiencing the same problem with 1.9.2: https://gist.github.com/756616 -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 27 December 2010 22:08, Micah Geisel <lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Ben, did you ever figure out anything here? I''m experiencing the same > problem with 1.9.2: https://gist.github.com/756616 >I am seeing a similar issue with startup between Rails 3 with 1.9.2 and Rails 2 with 1.8.7, though I have not investigated whether it is ruby or rails that is the issue. For example if I do rake db:migrate with nothing to do it takes 7 seconds on the former but only 2 on the latter. I see the same effect starting tests and so on. It is a bit of a pain. I am using rvm and bundler in both cases. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 28 December 2010 09:16, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 27 December 2010 22:08, Micah Geisel <lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> Ben, did you ever figure out anything here? I''m experiencing the same >> problem with 1.9.2: https://gist.github.com/756616 >> > > I am seeing a similar issue with startup between Rails 3 with 1.9.2 > and Rails 2 with 1.8.7, though I have not investigated whether it is > ruby or rails that is the issue. For example if I do rake db:migrate > with nothing to do it takes 7 seconds on the former but only 2 on the > latter. I see the same effect starting tests and so on. It is a bit > of a pain. I am using rvm and bundler in both cases.I have done some further tests and confirmed that it is Ruby 1.9.2 that is causing the problem. I am comparing a Rails 3 app with ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [i686-linux] against ruby 1.8.7 (2010-08-16 patchlevel 302) [i686-linux]. With a small app, as mentioned above, an empty rake db:migrate takes 7 seconds rather than 2 and Rake test takes 40 seconds on 1.9.2 versus 11 on 1.8.7. This is on Ubuntu 10.04. Any suggestions anyone? Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 28 December 2010 11:24, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 28 December 2010 09:16, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On 27 December 2010 22:08, Micah Geisel <lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> Ben, did you ever figure out anything here? I''m experiencing the same >>> problem with 1.9.2: https://gist.github.com/756616 >>> >> >> I am seeing a similar issue with startup between Rails 3 with 1.9.2 >> and Rails 2 with 1.8.7, though I have not investigated whether it is >> ruby or rails that is the issue. For example if I do rake db:migrate >> with nothing to do it takes 7 seconds on the former but only 2 on the >> latter. I see the same effect starting tests and so on. It is a bit >> of a pain. I am using rvm and bundler in both cases. > > I have done some further tests and confirmed that it is Ruby 1.9.2 > that is causing the problem. I am comparing a Rails 3 app with ruby > 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [i686-linux] against ruby 1.8.7 > (2010-08-16 patchlevel 302) [i686-linux]. With a small app, as > mentioned above, an empty rake db:migrate takes 7 seconds rather than > 2 and Rake test takes 40 seconds on 1.9.2 versus 11 on 1.8.7. This is > on Ubuntu 10.04.I have now tried this with ruby 1.9.2 p136 and it has not helped. When I look at the processor utilisation I see that rake is consuming all my available processor for most of the time. Can anyone confirm that they are using 1.9.2 with rails 3 (preferably on Ubuntu or similar) without seeing the slowdown that I have experienced. Alternatively can anyone suggest where I go from here (apart from buying a more powerful PC). Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 29 December 2010 20:47, cpr <crosebrugh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Just FYI, I can confirm that I''m seeing the same numbers you are > (following your gist). > > Running Ubuntu 10.4 on Virtual Box on Win 7 x64 on a MacBook Pro i7.Can I just check that you are confirming that you see a significant slow down between Ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.2? Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Conrad Taylor
2010-Dec-29 23:18 UTC
Re: Re: Extremely slow start up with ruby 1.9.1 vs 1.8.7
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 28 December 2010 11:24, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > On 28 December 2010 09:16, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> On 27 December 2010 22:08, Micah Geisel <lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >>> Ben, did you ever figure out anything here? I''m experiencing the same > >>> problem with 1.9.2: https://gist.github.com/756616 > >>> > >> > >> I am seeing a similar issue with startup between Rails 3 with 1.9.2 > >> and Rails 2 with 1.8.7, though I have not investigated whether it is > >> ruby or rails that is the issue. For example if I do rake db:migrate > >> with nothing to do it takes 7 seconds on the former but only 2 on the > >> latter. I see the same effect starting tests and so on. It is a bit > >> of a pain. I am using rvm and bundler in both cases. > > > > I have done some further tests and confirmed that it is Ruby 1.9.2 > > that is causing the problem. I am comparing a Rails 3 app with ruby > > 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [i686-linux] against ruby 1.8.7 > > (2010-08-16 patchlevel 302) [i686-linux]. With a small app, as > > mentioned above, an empty rake db:migrate takes 7 seconds rather than > > 2 and Rake test takes 40 seconds on 1.9.2 versus 11 on 1.8.7. This is > > on Ubuntu 10.04. > > I have now tried this with ruby 1.9.2 p136 and it has not helped. > When I look at the processor utilisation I see that rake is consuming > all my available processor for most of the time. Can anyone confirm > that they are using 1.9.2 with rails 3 (preferably on Ubuntu or > similar) without seeing the slowdown that I have experienced. > Alternatively can anyone suggest where I go from here (apart from > buying a more powerful PC). > > Colin > >Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you provide more information? -Conrad> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conradwt-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> ... > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > provide more information?I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process using most of it. I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app rails new testruby then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 On each ruby I ran time rake db:migrate a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got real 0m2.111s user 0m1.804s sys 0m0.220s and on 1.9.2 real 0m4.098s user 0m3.512s sys 0m0.424s I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 real 0m3.615s user 0m3.104s sys 0m0.316s and on 1.9.2 real 0m6.487s user 0m5.320s sys 0m0.684s It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On a bare app I get the same numbers as you show in your gist (about a 2x factor for sys and real times). On my relatively new app''s specs I get these: Using ~/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.2-p136 with gemset rails3 % time rake spec real 1m3.337s user 0m41.383s sys 0m3.760s Using ~/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.8.7-p330 with gemset rails3 % time rake spec real 0m21.948s user 0m12.721s sys 0m2.248s I ran each rvm 5 times and they''re very consistent. The CPU is at 45%, I have 2G ram and the app footprint in test is much smaller than that (~500M). Interesting that the ratios between the sys times and the real times are not tracking relative to the bare app. The real time going to 3x is nasty. I think I''ll do a ruby-prof next. -cpr On Dec 29, 12:55 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 29 December 2010 20:47, cpr <crosebr...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Just FYI, I can confirm that I''m seeing the same numbers you are > > (following your gist). > > > Running Ubuntu 10.4 on Virtual Box on Win 7 x64 on a MacBook Pro i7. > > Can I just check that you are confirming that you see a significant > slow down between Ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.2? > > Colin-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Conrad Taylor
2010-Dec-30 19:32 UTC
Re: Re: Extremely slow start up with ruby 1.9.1 vs 1.8.7
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conradwt-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > ... > > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > > provide more information? > > I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half > used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% > utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process > using most of it. > > I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app > rails new testruby > then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 > > On each ruby I ran > time rake db:migrate > a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got > real 0m2.111s > user 0m1.804s > sys 0m0.220s > > and on 1.9.2 > real 0m4.098s > user 0m3.512s > sys 0m0.424s > > I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 > real 0m3.615s > user 0m3.104s > sys 0m0.316s > > and on 1.9.2 > real 0m6.487s > user 0m5.320s > sys 0m0.684s > > It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. > > Colin > >Colin, do you have a test case that I can run locally? Or can you tell me the specifics? Next, I''m not sure that 1 GB RAM is sufficient because other resources outside the actual application uses the RAM. For example, on my slower machine, iMac, with 4 GB Ram, the RAM utilization for some common applications are as follows: Safari 5 ~554.0 MB Textmate ~96.1 MB Terminal ~14.0 MB Chrome ~199.6 MB Firefox ~128.2 MB and so on Note: The above doesn''t include any of the OS specific processes but you can see that this adds up. Also, most modern OS will reserve RAM for its use that cannot be used by the end user. Just something to keep in mind. Lastly, in regards to running spec, I tend to use Ruby Spork gem because anytime you do ''rake spec'', the Rails framework needs to be loaded before the application specific code can be executed. This is also true when running ''rake db:migrate'' Good luck, -Conrad> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hi Colin and all, I had exactly the same here: 1GB RAM, Ubuntu, RVM with Ruby1.9 and Rails - and it''s terribly slow comparing with the elder Ruby and Rails combo. Did you figured out anything? Also how did you speed up your server running? I already use Thin locally, and found it"s faster then Webrick, but still have to wait a lot after loading. Any trick? Thanks, Zoli On 2010 dec. 30, 20:32, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > ... > > > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > > > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > > > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > > > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > > > provide more information? > > > I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half > > used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% > > utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process > > using most of it. > > > I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app > > rails new testruby > > then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 > > > On each ruby I ran > > time rake db:migrate > > a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got > > real 0m2.111s > > user 0m1.804s > > sys 0m0.220s > > > and on 1.9.2 > > real 0m4.098s > > user 0m3.512s > > sys 0m0.424s > > > I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 > > real 0m3.615s > > user 0m3.104s > > sys 0m0.316s > > > and on 1.9.2 > > real 0m6.487s > > user 0m5.320s > > sys 0m0.684s > > > It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. > > > Colin > > Colin, do you have a test case that I can run locally? Or can you > tell me the specifics? Next, I''m not sure that 1 GB RAM is sufficient > because other resources outside the actual application uses the RAM. > For example, on my slower machine, iMac, with 4 GB Ram, the RAM > utilization for some common applications are as follows: > > Safari 5 ~554.0 MB > Textmate ~96.1 MB > Terminal ~14.0 MB > Chrome ~199.6 MB > Firefox ~128.2 MB > and so on > > Note: The above doesn''t include any of the OS specific processes but > you can see that this adds up. Also, most modern OS will reserve RAM > for its use that cannot be used by the end user. Just something to keep > in mind. > > Lastly, in regards to running spec, I tend to use Ruby Spork gem because > anytime you do ''rake spec'', the Rails framework needs to be loaded before > the application specific code can be executed. This is also true when > running > ''rake db:migrate'' > > Good luck, > > -Conrad > > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 2 January 2011 01:57, gezope <gezope-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi Colin and all, > > I had exactly the same here: 1GB RAM, Ubuntu, RVM with Ruby1.9 and > Rails - and it''s terribly slow comparing with the elder Ruby and Rails > combo. Did you figured out anything? > > Also how did you speed up your server running? I already use Thin > locally, and found it"s faster then Webrick, but still have to wait a > lot after loading. Any trick?I use mongrel. The server startup time is not really an issue for me in development as starting the server is not something that happens repeatedly. I don''t know whether the response time once the server is up and running is significantly different between 1.9.2 and 1.8.7, I had not noticed an obvious difference. It is the test cycle time particularly that is a pain. I use autotest and when I make a change I have to wait while the tests get underway, which is tedious. Colin> > Thanks, > Zoli > > On 2010 dec. 30, 20:32, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> > On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> > > ... >> > > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends >> > > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, >> > > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory >> > > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you >> > > provide more information? >> >> > I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half >> > used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% >> > utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process >> > using most of it. >> >> > I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app >> > rails new testruby >> > then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 >> >> > On each ruby I ran >> > time rake db:migrate >> > a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got >> > real 0m2.111s >> > user 0m1.804s >> > sys 0m0.220s >> >> > and on 1.9.2 >> > real 0m4.098s >> > user 0m3.512s >> > sys 0m0.424s >> >> > I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 >> > real 0m3.615s >> > user 0m3.104s >> > sys 0m0.316s >> >> > and on 1.9.2 >> > real 0m6.487s >> > user 0m5.320s >> > sys 0m0.684s >> >> > It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. >> >> > Colin >> >> Colin, do you have a test case that I can run locally? Or can you >> tell me the specifics? Next, I''m not sure that 1 GB RAM is sufficient >> because other resources outside the actual application uses the RAM. >> For example, on my slower machine, iMac, with 4 GB Ram, the RAM >> utilization for some common applications are as follows: >> >> Safari 5 ~554.0 MB >> Textmate ~96.1 MB >> Terminal ~14.0 MB >> Chrome ~199.6 MB >> Firefox ~128.2 MB >> and so on >> >> Note: The above doesn''t include any of the OS specific processes but >> you can see that this adds up. Also, most modern OS will reserve RAM >> for its use that cannot be used by the end user. Just something to keep >> in mind. >> >> Lastly, in regards to running spec, I tend to use Ruby Spork gem because >> anytime you do ''rake spec'', the Rails framework needs to be loaded before >> the application specific code can be executed. This is also true when >> running >> ''rake db:migrate'' >> >> Good luck, >> >> -Conrad >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> >> > . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> >http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Using ruby-prof I captured the CPU time of the startup of my 3.0.3 Rails app (https://gist.github.com/762764): ruby-1.8.7-p330 (Total CPU: 8.573606) %self total self wait child calls name 20.99 8.50 1.80 0.00 8.49 1898 Kernel#require 10.16 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 17128 Module#constants 6.71 0.82 0.58 0.00 0.25 3691 Array#select 6.22 8.00 0.53 0.00 7.95 58841 Array#each 4.16 1.85 0.36 0.00 1.66 14214 Array#map ruby-1.9.2-p136 (Total CPU 16.794391) %self total self wait child calls name 39.93 16.47 6.71 0.00 16.46 1904 Kernel#require 3.85 2.51 0.65 0.00 2.23 14252 Array#map 3.61 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 594435 Symbol#to_s 3.23 15.68 0.54 0.00 15.59 41201 Array#each 2.38 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 2855 Module#constants Looks like require is 1/2 speed and that evaluating array blocks(?) has slowed down considerably. I saw chatter about require being an issue in 1.9.1 but the issue was closed. Doesn''t seem to be a Rails issue as much as a Ruby issue. I have the same issue wrt using autotest. My tests take 3x the time to run with 1.9.2. -cpr On Jan 2, 8:17 am, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 2 January 2011 01:57, gezope <gez...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Hi Colin and all, > > > I had exactly the same here: 1GB RAM, Ubuntu, RVM with Ruby1.9 and > > Rails - and it''s terribly slow comparing with the elder Ruby and Rails > > combo. Did you figured out anything? > > > Also how did you speed up your server running? I already use Thin > > locally, and found it"s faster then Webrick, but still have to wait a > > lot after loading. Any trick? > > I use mongrel. The server startup time is not really an issue for me > in development as starting the server is not something that happens > repeatedly. I don''t know whether the response time once the server is > up and running is significantly different between 1.9.2 and 1.8.7, I > had not noticed an obvious difference. It is the test cycle time > particularly that is a pain. I use autotest and when I make a change > I have to wait while the tests get underway, which is tedious. > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Zoli > > > On 2010 dec. 30, 20:32, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> > On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> > > ... > >> > > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > >> > > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > >> > > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > >> > > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > >> > > provide more information? > > >> > I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half > >> > used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% > >> > utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process > >> > using most of it. > > >> > I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app > >> > rails new testruby > >> > then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 > > >> > On each ruby I ran > >> > time rake db:migrate > >> > a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got > >> > real 0m2.111s > >> > user 0m1.804s > >> > sys 0m0.220s > > >> > and on 1.9.2 > >> > real 0m4.098s > >> > user 0m3.512s > >> > sys 0m0.424s > > >> > I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 > >> > real 0m3.615s > >> > user 0m3.104s > >> > sys 0m0.316s > > >> > and on 1.9.2 > >> > real 0m6.487s > >> > user 0m5.320s > >> > sys 0m0.684s > > >> > It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. > > >> > Colin > > >> Colin, do you have a test case that I can run locally? Or can you > >> tell me the specifics? Next, I''m not sure that 1 GB RAM is sufficient > >> because other resources outside the actual application uses the RAM. > >> For example, on my slower machine, iMac, with 4 GB Ram, the RAM > >> utilization for some common applications are as follows: > > >> Safari 5 ~554.0 MB > >> Textmate ~96.1 MB > >> Terminal ~14.0 MB > >> Chrome ~199.6 MB > >> Firefox ~128.2 MB > >> and so on > > >> Note: The above doesn''t include any of the OS specific processes but > >> you can see that this adds up. Also, most modern OS will reserve RAM > >> for its use that cannot be used by the end user. Just something to keep > >> in mind. > > >> Lastly, in regards to running spec, I tend to use Ruby Spork gem because > >> anytime you do ''rake spec'', the Rails framework needs to be loaded before > >> the application specific code can be executed. This is also true when > >> running > >> ''rake db:migrate'' > > >> Good luck, > > >> -Conrad > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > >> > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > >> > . > >> > For more options, visit this group at > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hi Colin, I have duplicated your tests using rvm on Ubuntu 10.04, with AMD64, and 3GB RAM, results are below: On Dec 30 2010, 3:59 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > ... > > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > > provide more information? > > I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half > used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% > utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process > using most of it. > > I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app > rails new testruby > then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 > > On each ruby I ran > time rake db:migrate > a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got > real 0m2.111s > user 0m1.804s > sys 0m0.220sreal 0m2.520s user 0m2.100s sys 0m0.340s> > and on 1.9.2 > real 0m4.098s > user 0m3.512s > sys 0m0.424sreal 0m0.922s user 0m0.730s sys 0m0.150s> > I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7I ran rake test and got no output, rake test:benchmark gave the following:> real 0m3.615s > user 0m3.104s > sys 0m0.316sFinished in 0.289591 seconds> > and on 1.9.2 > real 0m6.487s > user 0m5.320s > sys 0m0.684sFinished in 0.578807 seconds> > It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. > > ColinPaul -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Update: On Jan 2, 9:18 pm, paul h <p...-nqL44GTounsJ3nxcUk3PyQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi Colin, > > I have duplicated your tests using rvm on Ubuntu 10.04, with AMD64, > and 3GB RAM, results are below: > > On Dec 30 2010, 3:59 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > ... > > > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > > > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > > > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > > > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > > > provide more information? > > > I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half > > used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% > > utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process > > using most of it. > > > I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app > > rails new testruby > > then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 > > > On each ruby I ran > > time rake db:migrate > > a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got > > real 0m2.111s > > user 0m1.804s > > sys 0m0.220s > > real 0m2.520s > user 0m2.100s > sys 0m0.340s > > > > > and on 1.9.2 > > real 0m4.098s > > user 0m3.512s > > sys 0m0.424s > > real 0m0.922s > user 0m0.730s > sys 0m0.150s > > > > > I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 > > I ran rake test and got no output, rake test:benchmark gave the > following: > > > real 0m3.615s > > user 0m3.104s > > sys 0m0.316s > > Finished in 0.289591 secondsreal 0m4.363s user 0m3.390s sys 0m0.540s> > > > > and on 1.9.2 > > real 0m6.487s > > user 0m5.320s > > sys 0m0.684s > > Finished in 0.578807 secondsreal 0m7.211s user 0m5.810s sys 0m0.940s> > > > > It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. > > > Colin > > Paul-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 2 January 2011 21:18, paul h <paul-nqL44GTounsJ3nxcUk3PyQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi Colin, > > I have duplicated your tests using rvm on Ubuntu 10.04, with AMD64, > and 3GB RAM, results are below: > > On Dec 30 2010, 3:59 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> > ... >> > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends >> > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, >> > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory >> > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you >> > provide more information? >> >> I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half >> used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% >> utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process >> using most of it. >> >> I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app >> rails new testruby >> then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 >> >> On each ruby I ran >> time rake db:migrate >> a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got >> real 0m2.111s >> user 0m1.804s >> sys 0m0.220s > > real 0m2.520s > user 0m2.100s > sys 0m0.340s > >> >> and on 1.9.2 >> real 0m4.098s >> user 0m3.512s >> sys 0m0.424s > > real 0m0.922s > user 0m0.730s > sys 0m0.150sSo you are getting 1.9.2 _faster_ than 1.8.7 for db:migrate?> >> >> I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 > > I ran rake test and got no output, rake test:benchmark gave the > following: > >> real 0m3.615s >> user 0m3.104s >> sys 0m0.316s > > Finished in 0.289591 seconds > >> >> and on 1.9.2 >> real 0m6.487s >> user 0m5.320s >> sys 0m0.684s > > Finished in 0.578807 seconds > >> >> It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. >> >> Colin > > Paul > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Jan 2, 9:52 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 2 January 2011 21:18, paul h <p...-nqL44GTounsJ3nxcUk3PyQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Colin, > > > I have duplicated your tests using rvm on Ubuntu 10.04, with AMD64, > > and 3GB RAM, results are below: > > > On Dec 30 2010, 3:59 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >> > ... > >> > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > >> > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > >> > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > >> > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > >> > provide more information? > > >> I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half > >> used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% > >> utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process > >> using most of it. > > >> I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app > >> rails new testruby > >> then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 > > >> On each ruby I ran > >> time rake db:migrate > >> a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got > >> real 0m2.111s > >> user 0m1.804s > >> sys 0m0.220s > > > real 0m2.520s > > user 0m2.100s > > sys 0m0.340s > > >> and on 1.9.2 > >> real 0m4.098s > >> user 0m3.512s > >> sys 0m0.424s > > > real 0m0.922s > > user 0m0.730s > > sys 0m0.150s > > So you are getting 1.9.2 _faster_ than 1.8.7 for db:migrate?Yep I was... however: I now get (1.9.2p136): real 4.239s user 3.600s sys 0.460s I''ve just checked back over the shell output, and I missed an error message earlier on (I hadn''t run bundle install), so those test results (1.9.2) should be ignored - apologies to all for that. (In my defence I''m just recovering from major ''man-flu'', first day up and about today, and rvm is a new install today :))> > > > >> I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 > > > I ran rake test and got no output, rake test:benchmark gave the > > following: > > >> real 0m3.615s > >> user 0m3.104s > >> sys 0m0.316s > > > Finished in 0.289591 seconds > > >> and on 1.9.2 > >> real 0m6.487s > >> user 0m5.320s > >> sys 0m0.684s > > > Finished in 0.578807 seconds > > >> It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. > > >> Colin > > > Paul > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Anthony Panozzo
2011-Jan-07 19:16 UTC
Re: Extremely slow start up with ruby 1.9.1 vs 1.8.7
I am also getting the slow startup of rake, which impacts development using autotest. I''m running 1.9.2 on a Mac, and it seems to be taking a lot longer than I ever remember it taking. I didn''t yet run benchmarks, seems like they would be very similar to what you guys were seeing. - Anthony On Jan 2, 5:37 pm, paul h <p...-nqL44GTounsJ3nxcUk3PyQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Jan 2, 9:52 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > On 2 January 2011 21:18, paul h <p...-nqL44GTounsJ3nxcUk3PyQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Colin, > > > > I have duplicated your tests using rvm on Ubuntu 10.04, with AMD64, > > > and 3GB RAM, results are below: > > > > On Dec 30 2010, 3:59 pm, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >> On 29 December 2010 23:18, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > >> > ... > > >> > Colin, do you have a sample application? Next, it really depends > > >> > on your overall system and Rails app configuration. For example, > > >> > if you don''t have enough RAM, your system move data from memory > > >> > to the disk and vice-versa. This is a huge performance hit. Can you > > >> > provide more information? > > > >> I have 1GByte RAM and while running the test it shows less than half > > >> used and the disk is not rattling. The processor shows 100% > > >> utilisation whilst the test is running, with rake being the process > > >> using most of it. > > > >> I have tried making a new rails 3.0.3 app > > >> rails new testruby > > >> then using rvm to switch between 1.8.7 p302 and 1.9.2 p136 > > > >> On each ruby I ran > > >> time rake db:migrate > > >> a couple of times to let the disk cache settle out then for 1.8.7 I got > > >> real 0m2.111s > > >> user 0m1.804s > > >> sys 0m0.220s > > > > real 0m2.520s > > > user 0m2.100s > > > sys 0m0.340s > > > >> and on 1.9.2 > > >> real 0m4.098s > > >> user 0m3.512s > > >> sys 0m0.424s > > > > real 0m0.922s > > > user 0m0.730s > > > sys 0m0.150s > > > So you are getting 1.9.2 _faster_ than 1.8.7 for db:migrate? > > Yep I was... > > however: > > I now get (1.9.2p136): > > real 4.239s > user 3.600s > sys 0.460s > > I''ve just checked back over the shell output, and I missed an error > message earlier on (I hadn''t run bundle install), so those test > results (1.9.2) should be ignored - apologies to all for that. (In my > defence I''m just recovering from major ''man-flu'', first day up and > about today, and rvm is a new install today :)) > > > > > >> I also tried rake test and got, on 1.8.7 > > > > I ran rake test and got no output, rake test:benchmark gave the > > > following: > > > >> real 0m3.615s > > >> user 0m3.104s > > >> sys 0m0.316s > > > > Finished in 0.289591 seconds > > > >> and on 1.9.2 > > >> real 0m6.487s > > >> user 0m5.320s > > >> sys 0m0.684s > > > > Finished in 0.578807 seconds > > > >> It seems as if 1.9.2 takes about twice as long for some reason. > > > >> Colin > > > > Paul > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh4Ykp1iOSErHA@public.gmane.orgm. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Seems pretty consistent. Is anyone NOT seeing these results? It''s starting to look like this is the reality of Rails on 1.9.2. Is this simply a known Rails performance regression from 1.8 to 1.9? If so, it removes a great deal of my desire to upgrade. Perhaps we should take this to rails-core. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 8 January 2011 20:55, Micah Geisel <lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Seems pretty consistent. Is anyone NOT seeing these results? It''s > starting to look like this is the reality of Rails on 1.9.2. Is this > simply a known Rails performance regression from 1.8 to 1.9? If so, it > removes a great deal of my desire to upgrade. Perhaps we should take > this to rails-core.Done. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.rails.core/14754 Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Count me in :/ On ubuntu 10.10 with ruby 1.9.2 and a fresh rails 3.0.3. I created a cucumber feature with one scenario. Running cucumber takes about 18 seconds, with 17 seconds spent doing calls to kernel#require. See: https://gist.github.com/780747 Now, I installed ruby from ubuntu repos/ppa, which I am not sure it provided the latest ruby. So I removed everything and installed rvm. Installed ruby 1.9.2-p136 and had same issue. Then installed ree 1.8.7, and did not have the issue. It''s much faster. I will watch closely the -core mailing list for a possible resolution, but for now, I will use ree. See: https://gist.github.com/781489 -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Conrad Taylor
2011-Jan-16 10:36 UTC
Re: Re: Extremely slow start up with ruby 1.9.1 vs 1.8.7
Hi, in order to put your numbers below into context, can you post the spec for your hardware? Thanks, -Conrad Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2011, at 6:36 PM, Jp Jphpsf <lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Count me in :/ > > On ubuntu 10.10 with ruby 1.9.2 and a fresh rails 3.0.3. I created a > cucumber feature with one scenario. > > Running cucumber takes about 18 seconds, with 17 seconds spent doing > calls to kernel#require. > > See: https://gist.github.com/780747 > > Now, I installed ruby from ubuntu repos/ppa, which I am not sure it > provided the latest ruby. So I removed everything and installed rvm. > Installed ruby 1.9.2-p136 and had same issue. Then installed ree 1.8.7, > and did not have the issue. It''s much faster. I will watch closely the > -core mailing list for a possible resolution, but for now, I will use > ree. > > See: https://gist.github.com/781489 > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Luke Cowell
2011-Jan-16 16:21 UTC
Re: Re: Extremely slow start up with ruby 1.9.1 vs 1.8.7
This issue in 1.9.2 was affecting me enough that I switched back to 1.8.7, but not without doing a bit of research in to what the problem was. We see a performance loss in 1.9.2 as it exhibits the correct behaviour when calling require, whereas 1.8.7 is reliant on incorrect semantics that are not acceptable for production use. I was never affected by these incorrect semantics, but I suppose ruby-core has to right these things or accept the long term technical debt. Something called gem_prelude was added to ruby 1.9 as kludge to address some performance issues. Ryan David explain (from the ruby-core list):> It (gem_prelude) was created to address a symptom, namely, that rubygems was slow on some systems (and proportional to the number of gems you have installed).The good news is: a patch was committed (Jan 14) to ruby that should address some of the performance issues we''re seeing. Namely, 1.9.2 users will be able to upgrade to rubygems 1.4 which offers some improved performance. I don''t know when we''ll see the next ruby release, but I''m encouraged to see some progress. I''m also encouraged to see that there are members of the ruby-core team actively investigating and addressing these issues. Luke On 2011-01-16, at 2:36 AM, Conrad Taylor wrote:> Hi, in order to put your numbers below into context, can you post the spec for your hardware? > > Thanks, > > -Conrad > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 15, 2011, at 6:36 PM, Jp Jphpsf <lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Count me in :/ >> >> On ubuntu 10.10 with ruby 1.9.2 and a fresh rails 3.0.3. I created a >> cucumber feature with one scenario. >> >> Running cucumber takes about 18 seconds, with 17 seconds spent doing >> calls to kernel#require. >> >> See: https://gist.github.com/780747 >> >> Now, I installed ruby from ubuntu repos/ppa, which I am not sure it >> provided the latest ruby. So I removed everything and installed rvm. >> Installed ruby 1.9.2-p136 and had same issue. Then installed ree 1.8.7, >> and did not have the issue. It''s much faster. I will watch closely the >> -core mailing list for a possible resolution, but for now, I will use >> ree. >> >> See: https://gist.github.com/781489 >> >> -- >> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. >> To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Conrad Taylor wrote in post #975240:> Hi, in order to put your numbers below into context, can you post the > spec for your hardware? > > Thanks, > > -Conrad >I was running the test on my laptop (core 2 duo 1.86ghz + 2gb ram + 5400rpm hdd). I might run the same test on my desktop (quad core 3.2 ghz + 4gb + 10000 rpm drive). Also, with rvm, I think I can install ruby from head, see if it improves the performance problem. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Micah Geisel
2011-Jan-16 22:05 UTC
Re: Re: Extremely slow start up with ruby 1.9.1 vs 1.8.7
Jp Jphpsf wrote in post #975316:> Also, with rvm, I think I can install ruby from head, see if it improves > the performance problem.I''ve installed ruby-head via rvm, and updated my gist. It does seem to be an improvement! Still lagging behind ree, though. https://gist.github.com/756616 -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
> Using ruby-prof I captured the CPU time of the startup of my 3.0.3 > Rails app (https://gist.github.com/762764): >...> ruby-1.9.2-p136 (Total CPU 16.794391) > > %self total self wait child calls name > 39.93 16.47 6.71 0.00 16.46 1904 Kernel#require > 3.85 2.51 0.65 0.00 2.23 14252 Array#mapIf require is your bottleneck, you can use the faster_require gem: https://github.com/rdp/faster_require -r -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Reasonably Related Threads
- rvm install 1.8.7 prompts "There has been an error while running make. Halting the installation."
- Problems with SQLite3
- Does RSpec interfere with Pathname#dirname or Pathname#realpath ?
- OS X - `require': no such file to load -- sqlite3/sqlite3_native
- Controller Testing + Devise = boom (undefined @controller, request)